NationStates Jolt Archive

(Posted from another forum, but written by me under my more common name, Raslin. The thread was about what one would do as president of the USA.)

Make Atheism mandatory, and abolish the republican/democratic system of america. Those would be good times...

(A post in response to mine)

Interesting. An atheist dictatorship. So goes the Republic, so goes freedom.

(My elaborated post)

Who said anything about taking freedom?

Freedom of religion, i suppose. Other than that, no. A dictator who did what was best for the nation wouldn't need to restrict most civil rights. A few might have to be violated once in a while, but a humane dictator(the word is used in such evil conotation now) would be much better than a democratically elected leader. The Dictator wouldn't have to worry about pleasing the people, he could worry about doing what he felt was best for the nation.

Im a militant atheist, thats why atheism would be mandatory. At least in public, anyway. You could do what you wanted in your home, if you really wanted to, but schools(private too) would not be allowed to say good things about religion, there would not be official churches or any property for the specific function of religion, etc. If they wanted to be religious so badly, they could pray and everything in their houses and deny the truth. Whatever.

I would pull for large NATO involvement in iraq, and letting nations that participated(and only) get involved in reconstruction, to give incentives there. I would end strong ties with israel, and while not making it an enemy of the state, not supporting it. I would deny them further technology, and ask our member on the UNSC to re-invite the bill demanding israel pull out of palestine.

I would raise taxes across the board, with larger taxes going to the richer people. This would be done until government regulated systems, education, etc could be sufficiently strengthened, then I would gradually lower taxes as it seemed viable. I would listen to my economists on how exactly to make things work, though I would pursue a smart tax-and-spend system. I would not work on free healthcare, etc, I would leave those more to companies, though no incentives would be offered to those who take advantage of such a thing by creating huge prices because they dominate the market.

Back to Iraq, I would follow a strict ideology in the nation. I would send B-52 missions to bomb Fallujah, until they surrendured. If they didnt, the city would sooner or later be leveled. I would employ artillery and air strikes on religious centers, though warning people not to go to them. I would allow religious freedom for 8 years, and then end it. I would not give Iraq sovereignty, it would be a annexation of USA.

I would encourage emmigration to iraq by americans once the region became stable, which I believe an aggresive policy would acquire slowly, but much better than an easy going one. I wouldn't support rebuilding in iraq until fighting died down. I would allow more amnesty programs, and try to train more iraqi's to help fight the insurgents, although the job would get harder because of the religious intolerance policy starting.

I would feature a nationwide militia program for america. Everyone would be required 2 years minimum in the military, and then they could keep their guns. They would have to keep them in city-regulated vaults however, which could only be opened by order of the government.

While restrictions on items such as scopes, grenade launchers, etc would be in place, pretty much any semi-automatic gun would be legal to own, although background checks would be enforced, and people would have to pass them before they could enter gun shows. I would take away magazine restrictions, etc.

I would abolish the senate, and give their job to a new body, which would be similar but each state would have representation by population, not equal representation. I would also make it so any act, no matter what, could be veto'd by the executive branch. However, being a humane dictator, this would only be used when I believed it would be best for the nation.

I would pull out of peacekeeping missions in africa, etc. While some would frown upon it, I would give moral and possibly economic support to the African union, I believe its called. Africa should deal with african problems, even though I realize its hard.

In America, I would keep welfare, etc for about as long as I had taxes up, and then the time it takes to bring them back down. After that, with lower taxes, people will be presumed to do what they need for themselves. I would make outsourcing very undesirable to companies, so they would need to hire more americans. For example, forcing companies to give minimum wage, etc, to foreign workers, or have heavy fines imposed on them.

I would make abortion legal at any stage before third trimester. After that, the child must be given to an orphanage if its not wanted. While national elections would not be allowed, it would be a democratic system up to the city level, and cities/regions would be able to, with representatives, vote in State government. The executive could veto any of these desicions, but again, probably wouldn't unless really needed.

The military would be reshaped. I would sponsor good military development bonds with France, because before that I would make strong ties with France, if at all possible(would try very hard). I would throw out the stealth system, except for possibly a new system like the F-117. While useful against weaker opponents, I wouldn't want to lean on stealth to save us when there are many ways Stealth can be counteracted, especially in fighters who need to use radar, which can give themselves away.

The military budget would go higher, as more people would enter the force with mandatory two year service. I would try to work out a deal with France for LeClercs, and proliferate the M1a2 abrams to other nations, at reduced prices, though taking out the DU armour and ammunition.

I would also try to adopt the Famas G2 as the primary weapon for america, until a suitable new weapon would be put in, something in 7.62x51mm. I would get make ammunition standards higher, and would try to lower the amount of guns using 5.56mm to carbines and such.

Just a few of the things I would do as pres/dictator, of course.

(Posted from another forum, but written by me under my more common name, Raslin. The thread was about what one would do as president of the USA.)

Make Atheism mandatory, and abolish the republican/democratic system of america. Those would be good times...

(A post in response to mine)

Interesting. An atheist dictatorship. So goes the Republic, so goes freedom.

(My elaborated post)

Who said anything about taking freedom?

Freedom of religion, i suppose. Other than that, no. A dictator who did what was best for the nation wouldn't need to restrict most civil rights. A few might have to be violated once in a while, but a humane dictator(the word is used in such evil conotation now) would be much better than a democratically elected leader. The Dictator wouldn't have to worry about pleasing the people, he could worry about doing what he felt was best for the nation.

Im a militant atheist, thats why atheism would be mandatory. At least in public, anyway. You could do what you wanted in your home, if you really wanted to, but schools(private too) would not be allowed to say good things about religion, there would not be official churches or any property for the specific function of religion, etc. If they wanted to be religious so badly, they could pray and everything in their houses and deny the truth. Whatever.

I would pull for large NATO involvement in iraq, and letting nations that participated(and only) get involved in reconstruction, to give incentives there. I would end strong ties with israel, and while not making it an enemy of the state, not supporting it. I would deny them further technology, and ask our member on the UNSC to re-invite the bill demanding israel pull out of palestine.

I would raise taxes across the board, with larger taxes going to the richer people. This would be done until government regulated systems, education, etc could be sufficiently strengthened, then I would gradually lower taxes as it seemed viable. I would listen to my economists on how exactly to make things work, though I would pursue a smart tax-and-spend system. I would not work on free healthcare, etc, I would leave those more to companies, though no incentives would be offered to those who take advantage of such a thing by creating huge prices because they dominate the market.

Back to Iraq, I would follow a strict ideology in the nation. I would send B-52 missions to bomb Fallujah, until they surrendured. If they didnt, the city would sooner or later be leveled. I would employ artillery and air strikes on religious centers, though warning people not to go to them. I would allow religious freedom for 8 years, and then end it. I would not give Iraq sovereignty, it would be a annexation of USA.

I would encourage emmigration to iraq by americans once the region became stable, which I believe an aggresive policy would acquire slowly, but much better than an easy going one. I wouldn't support rebuilding in iraq until fighting died down. I would allow more amnesty programs, and try to train more iraqi's to help fight the insurgents, although the job would get harder because of the religious intolerance policy starting.

I would feature a nationwide militia program for america. Everyone would be required 2 years minimum in the military, and then they could keep their guns. They would have to keep them in city-regulated vaults however, which could only be opened by order of the government.

While restrictions on items such as scopes, grenade launchers, etc would be in place, pretty much any semi-automatic gun would be legal to own, although background checks would be enforced, and people would have to pass them before they could enter gun shows. I would take away magazine restrictions, etc.

I would abolish the senate, and give their job to a new body, which would be similar but each state would have representation by population, not equal representation. I would also make it so any act, no matter what, could be veto'd by the executive branch. However, being a humane dictator, this would only be used when I believed it would be best for the nation.

I would pull out of peacekeeping missions in africa, etc. While some would frown upon it, I would give moral and possibly economic support to the African union, I believe its called. Africa should deal with african problems, even though I realize its hard.

In America, I would keep welfare, etc for about as long as I had taxes up, and then the time it takes to bring them back down. After that, with lower taxes, people will be presumed to do what they need for themselves. I would make outsourcing very undesirable to companies, so they would need to hire more americans. For example, forcing companies to give minimum wage, etc, to foreign workers, or have heavy fines imposed on them.

I would make abortion legal at any stage before third trimester. After that, the child must be given to an orphanage if its not wanted. While national elections would not be allowed, it would be a democratic system up to the city level, and cities/regions would be able to, with representatives, vote in State government. The executive could veto any of these desicions, but again, probably wouldn't unless really needed.

The military would be reshaped. I would sponsor good military development bonds with France, because before that I would make strong ties with France, if at all possible(would try very hard). I would throw out the stealth system, except for possibly a new system like the F-117. While useful against weaker opponents, I wouldn't want to lean on stealth to save us when there are many ways Stealth can be counteracted, especially in fighters who need to use radar, which can give themselves away.

The military budget would go higher, as more people would enter the force with mandatory two year service. I would try to work out a deal with France for LeClercs, and proliferate the M1a2 abrams to other nations, at reduced prices, though taking out the DU armour and ammunition.

I would also try to adopt the Famas G2 as the primary weapon for america, until a suitable new weapon would be put in, something in 7.62x51mm. I would get make ammunition standards higher, and would try to lower the amount of guns using 5.56mm to carbines and such.

Just a few of the things I would do as pres/dictator, of course.



Yes, forcing people into NOT believing in God would make them happy. I'll worship who the hell I want and no one can tell me to or not to.

Yes, forcing people into NOT believing in God would make them happy. I'll worship who the hell I want and no one can tell me to or not to.

Did I say forcing people to believe in no god? No.

Read the second paragraph of my elaborated response. Jeez. Has american politics ruined any perception of political beliefs?

Did I say forcing people to believe in no god? No.

Read the second paragraph of my elaborated response. Jeez. Has american politics ruined any perception of political beliefs?




You said freedom of religion.

And? You said freedom of religion. Its three words.

Again, read the paragraph. It actually explains it. Its more secular than atheist.

Yep yep, you did, you said you'd take away freedom of religion, make athiesm mandatory, but then you said they could be religious later on......Flip flop! ;)

If I was president/dictator the top 10 things I would do.
1. Make it illegal to be a homosexual
2. Shorten the time you can stay on welfare
3. Leave the UN
4. Stop all aid to Africa
5. Fix the illegal immigration probaly by wounding and marking on the first attempt then putting in a work camp anyone who tries to cross illegaly on the second attempt
6. Start trade with Cuba
7. Create some sort of elected body to deal with certain domestic issues
8. Decrease the amount of troops so they can be better equipped and trained
9. Make it harder to file a lawsuit to reduce the amount off people getting sued
10. Make some sort of basic health care so people who cannot afford it can have some care while the rich can still have their better care

If I was president/dictator the top 10 things I would do.
1. Make it illegal to be a homosexual
2. Shorten the time you can stay on welfare
3. Leave the UN
4. Stop all aid to Africa
5. Fix the illegal immigration probaly by wounding and marking on the first attempt then putting in a work camp anyone who tries to cross illegaly on the second attempt
6. Start trade with Cuba
7. Create some sort of elected body to deal with certain domestic issues
8. Decrease the amount of troops so they can be better equipped and trained
9. Make it harder to file a lawsuit to reduce the amount off people getting sued
10. Make some sort of basic health care so people who cannot afford it can have some care while the rich can still have their better care



Stop helping Africans who need it and start trading with Castro *rolls eyes*.

I'd encourage/fund/support a rebellion in America if either of the two became pres....

I'd encourage/fund/support a rebellion in America if either of the two became pres....
Terrorist! I've giotta contract the Patriot Act!

I'd encourage/fund/support a rebellion in America if either of the two became pres....

And I would cut all help to the british trying to hold onto ireland.

Did I say forcing people to believe in no god? No.
No, but you said you would make atheism mandatory. If that is not what you meant, then don't say it. It's that simple.

No, but you said you would make atheism mandatory. If that is not what you meant, then don't say it. It's that simple.

Im a militant atheist, thats why atheism would be mandatory. At least in public, anyway. You could do what you wanted in your home, if you really wanted to, but schools(private too) would not be allowed to say good things about religion, there would not be official churches or any property for the specific function of religion, etc. If they wanted to be religious so badly, they could pray and everything in their houses and deny the truth. Whatever.


Literacy is a good thing, children.

I would do several things.

- Commission the construction of the world's largest pizza.
- Destroy North Korea, and to hell with South Korea.
- Let Israel go to town on the Middle East, since no one wants us there.
- Cut back on the size and budget of the government, since we would have far fewer military obligations.
- Increase states' rights.
- Ban governmental intrusion into the institution of marriage, and instead require that all couples, straight or gay, join in a civil union, and then leave the marriages to the church.
- Take Kennedy and Scolia out of the Supreme Court, as they are biased pricks.
- Make Chinese food have fewer ill effects on the American digestive system.
- Same for Mexican.
- Go fight Charon one on one, me vs. him.
- Challenge Michael Moore to a duel.
- Return the FBI to the powerful state it was in under Hoover.
- Kill Alec Baldwin (FAG - Film Actors Guild, and yes I got it from Team America)

Im a militant atheist, thats why atheism would be mandatory. At least in public, anyway. You could do what you wanted in your home, if you really wanted to, but schools(private too) would not be allowed to say good things about religion, there would not be official churches or any property for the specific function of religion, etc. If they wanted to be religious so badly, they could pray and everything in their houses and deny the truth. Whatever.


Literacy is a good thing, children.
Interesting, but stating that you would make atheism mandatory does not go along with your elaboration on the subject. Perhaps better word choice might be the solution, imbecile.

Mandatory: Required or commanded by authority; obligatory

The use of the word mandatory leaves no room for choice. That was what I was pointing out. if you weren't such a mule-headed chap you might have realized that. Perhaps literacy is something you need to work on.

As president I would:
-Cut the budget by reducing beaurocracy
-Completely overhaul the tax code
-Either withdraw from the UN officially or not have anything to do with them anymore
-Outlaw gay marriage
-Restrict abortions to situations only where medically necessary
-Get rid of affirmative action (ie, discrimination against white people)
-Invade Saudi Arabia and Iran
-Replace the supreme court, as most of them are looneys
-Sell California back to Mexico
-Deport Michael Moore
-Fix the INS
-Give more power back to individual states
-Let Israel do whatever they want. Why would I to condemn a country that minds its own business and support one that blows up women and children?

get max to make me a mod

Im a militant atheist, thats why atheism would be mandatory. At least in public, anyway. You could do what you wanted in your home, if you really wanted to, but schools(private too) would not be allowed to say good things about religion, there would not be official churches or any property for the specific function of religion, etc. If they wanted to be religious so badly, they could pray and everything in their houses and deny the truth. Whatever.


So, in other words, disallow religion so that your beliefs cannot be challenged and subsequently disproven.

Interesting, but stating that you would make atheism mandatory does not go along with your elaboration on the subject. Perhaps better word choice might be the solution, imbecile.

Mandatory: Required or commanded by authority; obligatory

The use of the word mandatory leaves no room for choice. That was what I was pointing out. if you weren't such a mule-headed chap you might have realized that. Perhaps literacy is something you need to work on.

Wow, semantics. You know what I meant, and if you didn't, you're an idiot.

So, in other words, disallow religion so that your beliefs cannot be challenged and subsequently disproven.

No. Disallow religion because im against idiocy and lies.

Besides, even if I fully allowed religion, it wouldn't be proven.

No. Disallow religion because im against idiocy and lies.

Besides, even if I fully allowed religion, it wouldn't be proven.



Maybe people think athiesm is full of idiocy and lies, have you ever thought of that?

Maybe people think athiesm is full of idiocy and lies, have you ever thought of that?

Im sure many do. They are wrong, however.

Im sure many do. They are wrong, however.




Oh but religion is just full of them. I'll admitt it is not without error but considering the statement you just made, it appears you have a heavy double-standard.

Freedom of religion, i suppose. Other than that, no. A dictator who did what was best for the nation wouldn't need to restrict most civil rights. A few might have to be violated once in a while, but a humane dictator...

Reckless and willingful disregard for history. If we've learned anything from the past centuries, we've learned this, absolute power is absolutely corrupt. As the founding fathers said in the Federalist Papers, "we must...compel the government to restrain itself." A dictator would have no restraint, and even assuming you were a good dictator, your successors would not be. The immense harm done by evil absolute rulers outweighs the good done by the few reasonable dictators as to make it impossible for any logical person who values freedom to support such a system.

Im a militant atheist, thats why atheism would be mandatory.

So you infringe freedom of religion, speech, and property all in one fell swoop. The next dictator decides those pesky jury trials have to go. The next one decides his favorite horse should be first consul...

I would pull for large NATO involvement in iraq, and letting nations that participated(and only) get involved in reconstruction, to give incentives there. I would end strong ties with israel, and while not making it an enemy of the state, not supporting it. I would deny them further technology, and ask our member on the UNSC to re-invite the bill demanding israel pull out of palestine.

How do you suppose that abandoning our ally Israel, something which the terrorists have demanded that we do, will help strengthen our position in our battle against their militant movement? They will say to themselves, "see, the US has caved into this demand, we will hit them again and ask for more concessions." Thus imboldened the terror problem will swell, not recede, and our allies which you seek to bring on board will falter, believing that the US will sell them out for peace should it be required by our foes.

I would raise taxes across the board, with larger taxes going to the richer people.

So you're going to stifle economic activity in general, and job creation in particular?

This would be done until government regulated systems, education, etc could be sufficiently strengthened, then I would gradually lower taxes as it seemed viable.

The US is already one of the largest spenders per capita on education in the world. Its quite telling that you don't seek to reform the inefficient bureaucracy, but instead think the solution is to simply toss more cash at the problem. This is the kind of shallow minded pandering that has dominated the political landscape for the last several decades now. What makes you think that you can suceed with this policy when so many others have failed?

I would listen to my economists on how exactly to make things work, though I would pursue a smart tax-and-spend system.

Those two concepts are mutually exclusive. Economists know that tax and spend policies weaken the economy.

I would not work on free healthcare, etc, I would leave those more to companies, though no incentives would be offered to those who take advantage of such a thing by creating huge prices because they dominate the market.

So would you back off government healthcare intervention that already exists and restore a true free market system, or would you leave this cut and paste quasi-socialist abomination alive to wreck further havok on the medical system?

Back to Iraq, I would follow a strict ideology in the nation. I would send B-52 missions to bomb Fallujah, until they surrendured. If they didnt, the city would sooner or later be leveled...I would not give Iraq sovereignty, it would be a annexation of USA.


Why not simply avoid another fifty years of conflict and break the nation up into political zones based on nationality? I should think that setting up three independent nations would be preferable to a massacre of the people of Fallujah. Furthermore, what possible benefit could America gain by annexing Iraq? We're going to have a tough time setting up stable government as it is; imagine the problems surrounding a perpetual occupation, rebuilding effort, defense, etc.

I would encourage emmigration to iraq by americans once the region became stable, which I believe an aggresive policy would acquire slowly, but much better than an easy going one. I wouldn't support rebuilding in iraq until fighting died down. I would allow more amnesty programs, and try to train more iraqi's to help fight the insurgents, although the job would get harder because of the religious intolerance policy starting.

This strikes me as wishful thinking at its most obscene. Why would Americans move to Iraq? We don't speak the language, there are few economic opportunities there compared to here, there is an ever-present threat of being killed, the climate is poor, the infrastructure is very poor by our standards, etc

I would feature a nationwide militia program for america. Everyone would be required 2 years minimum in the military, and then they could keep their guns. They would have to keep them in city-regulated vaults however, which could only be opened by order of the government.


The draft is simply another way to tax people, in this case of their time, not their money. We should staff the military by paying wages high enough to enduce a sufficient number of people to willingly join. Weapons are protected by the clear language of the Second Amendment. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand? I guess that doesn't concern you though since you're playing dictator for the day. You could at least explain why you think your policies would be beneficial though.


I would abolish the senate, and give their job to a new body, which would be similar but each state would have representation by population, not equal representation. I would also make it so any act, no matter what, could be veto'd by the executive branch. However, being a humane dictator, this would only be used when I believed it would be best for the nation.

Why have a legislative branch when you retain absolute power?


I would make outsourcing very undesirable to companies, so they would need to hire more americans. For example, forcing companies to give minimum wage, etc, to foreign workers, or have heavy fines imposed on them.

In other words you would usher in a new era of super-inflation as businesses passed those costs on to the consumers. Those increased prices would be followed by a sharp decline in consumption followed by a decline in employment followed by a deep and pervasive depression. I thought you said you were going to listen to your economists?

I would make abortion legal at any stage before third trimester. After that, the child must be given to an orphanage if its not wanted.

How can you have abortion legal at some stages and illegal at others? If you believe an unborn child is a child then it is wrong to kill it at any stage. If you think an unborn child is a mass of tissue then it is fine to kill it at any stage. It always amazes me to see people try to set down arbitrary lines about when its a baby and when its just excess tissue.

While national elections would not be allowed, it would be a democratic system up to the city level, and cities/regions would be able to, with representatives, vote in State government. The executive could veto any of these desicions, but again, probably wouldn't unless really needed.

If these representatives are simply rubber stamping executive decisions then what is the point? Just hire the most qualified bureaucrats and put them in charge of the local districts instead of leaving it to whatever hick the locals put in charge of administration.

The military would be reshaped. I would sponsor good military development bonds with France, because before that I would make strong ties with France, if at all possible(would try very hard).

What exactly is our motivation to cozy up with France? Is this just some sort of knee jerk reaction to our current chilled relations with them, or did you have a legitimate reason?

I would throw out the stealth system, except for possibly a new system like the F-117. While useful against weaker opponents, I wouldn't want to lean on stealth to save us when there are many ways Stealth can be counteracted, especially in fighters who need to use radar, which can give themselves away.

So instead of keeping a system which has large benefits against weak opponents and marginal benefits against technically advanced opponents we would just paint a big bulls-eye on the side of our planes? There isn't hardly a weapon system out there, except for the ICBM, which can't be countered in some way. That doesn't mean that they don't have operational uses. One of the reasons that the US is the world's preeminent military power is the immense depth of our arsenal.

The military budget would go higher, as more people would enter the force with mandatory two year service. I would try to work out a deal with France for LeClercs, and proliferate the M1a2 abrams to other nations, at reduced prices, though taking out the DU armour and ammunition.

Again, do you have any reason for giving away our best weapons or is this just some kind of desire to make sure that US hegemony ends in an abrupt fashion?



Pardon me, but this seems like a lot of half baked unsupported policies which, as far as I can tell, would either actively harm the US or would at best do no good.

Oh but religion is just full of them. I'll admitt it is not without error but considering the statement you just made, it appears you have a heavy double-standard.

I see no double-standard. They are wrong. Atheism is reality.

I see no double-standard. They are wrong. Atheism is reality.




Thats what you think but that necessarly doesn't mean it's right.

I see no double-standard. They are wrong. Atheism is reality.

Prove it. Keep in mind that because you don't see god doesnt mean it doesnt exist. You can't see my feet, so does that mean they don't exist?

Wow, semantics. You know what I meant, and if you didn't, you're an idiot.
Childish name calling, apparently, is all you have left. The truth of the matter is, you said two completely different things, and then became very defensive and outright anal once you were called on it. Therefore, your entire argument so far is little more than an enormous pile of dung. When you say you will make atheism mandatory, and call yourself a militant atheist, then I will assume, quite naturally, that you mean you will ban religion. Now, after reading such a bigoted statement, you will have to forgive me for ignoring the rest of your pathetic drivel, since a man such as yourself could never be elected President in the first place.

Prove it. Keep in mind that because you don't see god doesnt mean it doesnt exist. You can't see my feet, so does that mean they don't exist?
He is not interested in proof. If he was, he would be aware of the fact that atheism stands on far more tentative ground than, say, Christianity, since atheism actually relies on Evolution for its support. However, since evolution is chock-full of its own problems it really doesn't constitute a very firm base of support.

Ninja Edit: Silly fundy overruled!

On the feet, I have feet. Most of the people I've seen have feet. Feet are a pretty mundane, natural object. All humans are supposed to have them. It's a pretty safe bet to assume you have them. Of course I can't know for sure and you might not have any in the first place, but the chances of that are slim.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Your feet aren't extraordinary.

*pokes HRM* Silly fundy, Evolution is a pretty good theory. No one said it was complete though.

Reckless and willingful disregard for history. If we've learned anything from the past centuries, we've learned this, absolute power is absolutely corrupt. As the founding fathers said in the Federalist Papers, "we must...compel the government to restrain itself." A dictator would have no restraint, and even assuming you were a good dictator, your successors would not be. The immense harm done by evil absolute rulers outweighs the good done by the few reasonable dictators as to make it impossible for any logical person who values freedom to support such a system.

We have seen this, not learned this as fact, because it isn't fact. I believe in willpower. If you don't want to be corrupt by power, you don't have to be. I wouldn't, and I would hope my successor's weren't. If they were, it would go to hell. I would hope this would not happen, however.No one can control the future.



So you infringe freedom of religion, speech, and property all in one fell swoop. The next dictator decides those pesky jury trials have to go. The next one decides his favorite horse should be first consul...

If they are corrupted. I should hope they aren't. Not much more I can do about that. I can make myself non-corrupt, and hope for the best for the future.

How do you suppose that abandoning our ally Israel, something which the terrorists have demanded that we do, will help strengthen our position in our battle against their militant movement? They will say to themselves, "see, the US has caved into this demand, we will hit them again and ask for more concessions." Thus imboldened the terror problem will swell, not recede, and our allies which you seek to bring on board will falter, believing that the US will sell them out for peace should it be required by our foes.

They can believe what they want. I dont control the terrorists. I will pull out of middle eastern affairs, and they would lose much support if they kept attacking. I would work on securing our borders moreso instead of getting involved there. They would lose by attrition.

So you're going to stifle economic activity in general, and job creation in particular?

Not in particular, and not on purpose. If that happens, it happens, but I plan on it not.

The US is already one of the largest spenders per capita on education in the world. Its quite telling that you don't seek to reform the inefficient bureaucracy, but instead think the solution is to simply toss more cash at the problem. This is the kind of shallow minded pandering that has dominated the political landscape for the last several decades now. What makes you think that you can suceed with this policy when so many others have failed?

I only gave a couple of things that I would reform. Many others would be as well. I would succeed, I believe, because I wouldn't have to worry so much about popularity and constraints, but only doing my best.

Those two concepts are mutually exclusive. Economists know that tax and spend policies weaken the economy.

This is your belief, not mine. Please don't present opinions as fact.

So would you back off government healthcare intervention that already exists and restore a true free market system, or would you leave this cut and paste quasi-socialist abomination alive to wreck further havok on the medical system?

Free-market system. I'm very against welfare, free healthcare, etc. Weak people hurt the nation, if they can't sustain themselves they shouldn't survive.

Why not simply avoid another fifty years of conflict and break the nation up into political zones based on nationality? I should think that setting up three independent nations would be preferable to a massacre of the people of Fallujah. Furthermore, what possible benefit could America gain by annexing Iraq? We're going to have a tough time setting up stable government as it is; imagine the problems surrounding a perpetual occupation, rebuilding effort, defense, etc.

It would not be an annexation per say, it would be a territory of america. I suppose annexation was a strong word, just as mandatory atheism was. It would be a US territory, with self-rule for the most part but strict US policies and it would be under my rule. It would be kept because of oil reserves, and as a possible new market-area.

I am for total warfare. I would do whatever nessecary to get places under control, even if it meant the obliteration of cities.

This strikes me as wishful thinking at its most obscene. Why would Americans move to Iraq? We don't speak the language, there are few economic opportunities there compared to here, there is an ever-present threat of being killed, the climate is poor, the infrastructure is very poor by our standards, etc

The language would become english, and all schools would have to teach it. Emmigation to Iraq would bring economic oppertunities. First large companies would go to get cheap labour, then others would come as the economy, infrastructure, etc would become americanized.

The draft is simply another way to tax people, in this case of their time, not their money. We should staff the military by paying wages high enough to enduce a sufficient number of people to willingly join. Weapons are protected by the clear language of the Second Amendment. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand? I guess that doesn't concern you though since you're playing dictator for the day. You could at least explain why you think your policies would be beneficial though.

The constitution wouldn't restrict my power. People would be able to keep guns, im very much for guns rights. The military guns that they would keep from service afterward would be kept in vaults, so not everyone runs around with a military-grade assault rifle. That would make revolution easy, among other things.

The weapons in the vaults would be there in case of invasion, or whatnot. If America was invaded, the vaults would be opened and people would be armed and ready.


Why have a legislative branch when you retain absolute power?

Because while I retain absolute power, I am not absolutly powerful. I don't know everything. A new representative body would be able to spend time on these issues, and do what they felt was right. If I felt they had made an informed choice, I probably would let their bills pass. Just because I can veto it, or do whatever I want, doesn't mean I will. I can listen to my underlings, and would often.

In other words you would usher in a new era of super-inflation as businesses passed those costs on to the consumers. Those increased prices would be followed by a sharp decline in consumption followed by a decline in employment followed by a deep and pervasive depression. I thought you said you were going to listen to your economists?

I'm not answering this because you have set up the whole question to make anything I say look bad.

How can you have abortion legal at some stages and illegal at others? If you believe an unborn child is a child then it is wrong to kill it at any stage. If you think an unborn child is a mass of tissue then it is fine to kill it at any stage. It always amazes me to see people try to set down arbitrary lines about when its a baby and when its just excess tissue.

I don't think its life until its born. However, I feel that if someone decides to have an abortion by the third term, its probably not because they never wanted the baby. Its probably a more sudden reason, and I would rather not have every person who had birthing jitters destroying their babies. We can put them to good use later in life.

If these representatives are simply rubber stamping executive decisions then what is the point? Just hire the most qualified bureaucrats and put them in charge of the local districts instead of leaving it to whatever hick the locals put in charge of administration.

A local body means that that body is worried most about the welfare of it. Again, I would be a dictator moreso to make sure my vision is correct, not to do whatever I feel is right, no matter what. A local body will know whats best for their local area, and I will only need to deny them what they choose if I feel it would be worse. But I would assume they know better than I about local issues. They wouldn't be able to contradict my laws, however.

What exactly is our motivation to cozy up with France? Is this just some sort of knee jerk reaction to our current chilled relations with them, or did you have a legitimate reason?

I like France. Alot.

So instead of keeping a system which has large benefits against weak opponents and marginal benefits against technically advanced opponents we would just paint a big bulls-eye on the side of our planes? There isn't hardly a weapon system out there, except for the ICBM, which can't be countered in some way. That doesn't mean that they don't have operational uses. One of the reasons that the US is the world's preeminent military power is the immense depth of our arsenal.

I feel stealth is more loss than it is gain. An F-22 has 6 places to hold weapons, if it wants to maintain stealth. A Rafale can hold 14. I never said anything about making them easy to detect, and low detectability aircraft like the Rafale are a very good example of this.

We wouldn't be fighting wars against small nations, because I would have little need. I would have good relations, or try to, with important countries. I don't care about small nations, because most of them won't hold a monopoly on something america needs.

Again, do you have any reason for giving away our best weapons or is this just some kind of desire to make sure that US hegemony ends in an abrupt fashion?

They may be our best weapons, but they aren't at all the best weapons out there. Our equipment is subpar compared to many other nations equipment.

Pardon me, but this seems like a lot of half baked unsupported policies which, as far as I can tell, would either actively harm the US or would at best do no good.

Sorry you don't agree.



0090013002450066600

Thats what you think but that necessarly doesn't mean it's right.

It doesn't mean Im right, no. But I am.

Prove it. Keep in mind that because you don't see god doesnt mean it doesnt exist. You can't see my feet, so does that mean they don't exist?

Im not going to prove a negative. Prove that aliens aren't controlling our minds, and we will die tomorrow if we don't kill all the dogs.

If no one else had feet, you didn't say you had feet, no one respectable had ever seen your feet or anyones feet at all, and it didn't make logical sense that you had feet, then I would not believe it.

Childish name calling, apparently, is all you have left. The truth of the matter is, you said two completely different things, and then became very defensive and outright anal once you were called on it. Therefore, your entire argument so far is little more than an enormous pile of dung. When you say you will make atheism mandatory, and call yourself a militant atheist, then I will assume, quite naturally, that you mean you will ban religion. Now, after reading such a bigoted statement, you will have to forgive me for ignoring the rest of your pathetic drivel, since a man such as yourself could never be elected President in the first place.

Completely different things? Secularism is the opposite of atheism?

I admit, Mandatory atheism was a bit strong. I meant mandatory atheism in public. If you were unclear, you could have read the rest of my statement, and become clear on what I meant. Arguing over semantics is idiotic.

I could be elected. I would require everyone in america to vote for me and want me, and let me get into power. Anything is possible, even if unlikely to the extreme.

He is not interested in proof. If he was, he would be aware of the fact that atheism stands on far more tentative ground than, say, Christianity, since atheism actually relies on Evolution for its support. However, since evolution is chock-full of its own problems it really doesn't constitute a very firm base of support.

I forgot. Christianity makes more logical sense then Atheism. Right.

Ninja Edit: Silly fundy overruled!

On the feet, I have feet. Most of the people I've seen have feet. Feet are a pretty mundane, natural object. All humans are supposed to have them. It's a pretty safe bet to assume you have them. Of course I can't know for sure and you might not have any in the first place, but the chances of that are slim.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Your feet aren't extraordinary.

*pokes HRM* Silly fundy, Evolution is a pretty good theory. No one said it was complete though.

I never said Evolution was true, anyways. I said Atheism was reality. Atheism isn't always evolution, though evolution is a seperate belief of mine, one more likely to be wrong than atheism.

It doesn't mean Im right, no. But I am.




You seem so sure of yourself, so I won't bother trying to at least you allow room for other ideals.

You seem so sure of yourself, so I won't bother trying to at least you allow room for other ideals.

Ok.

If I were president, I would:

1. Lie
2. Cheat
3. Pander
4. Steal
5. Bribe
5. Get blowjobs on a daily basis.
6. Mindlessly slaughter innocents from other countries.
7. Mindlessly slaughter innocents from my country.
8. Slowly dye my hair grey to make it seem like I'm spending a lot of time on the job.
9. Use self declared "unbiased" media sources to spread propaganda throughout the masses without their knowing.
10. Murder dissenters without the public knowing, and make a cover story to say that they "retired".
12. Get a boner at the mention of nuclear war.
13. Yell like a raging drunk during my speeches, and have people assume that I'm just really patriotic.
14. Get more blowjobs.
15. Smoke pot.
16. Use your hard earned tax money to buy my next home.
17. Invoke the most contrived quotes from the Bible as I try to justify my stances.
18. Found groups to run attack ads force me, and deny any connection to them when they're proven to lie.
19. Keep promising a utopian society as I continue to screw you over.
20. Keep on getting blowjobs.

If I were president, I would:

1. Lie
2. Cheat
3. Pander
4. Steal
5. Bribe
5. Get blowjobs on a daily basis.
6. Mindlessly slaughter innocents from other countries.
7. Mindlessly slaughter innocents from my country.
8. Slowly dye my hair grey to make it seem like I'm spending a lot of time on the job.
9. Use self declared "unbiased" media sources to spread propaganda throughout the masses without their knowing.
10. Murder dissenters without the public knowing, and make a cover story to say that they "retired".
12. Get a boner at the mention of nuclear war.
13. Yell like a raging drunk during my speeches, and have people assume that I'm just really patriotic.
14. Get more blowjobs.
15. Smoke pot.
16. Use your hard earned tax money to buy my next home.
17. Invoke the most contrived quotes from the Bible as I try to justify my stances.
18. Found groups to run attack ads force me, and deny any connection to them when they're proven to lie.
19. Keep promising a utopian society as I continue to screw you over.
20. Keep on getting blowjobs.





Really like blowjobs there, don't ya?

Really like blowjobs there, don't ya?

So you don't?
and i not gonna even try to put my opinion out there because you people are so stubbornly fixed in your statements i am glad you have no real power over my life

So you don't?
and i not gonna even try to put my opinion out there because you people are so stubbornly fixed in your statements i am glad you have no real power over my life

Eww. Blowjobs.

Straight missionary style for me. And only for pregnancy, never for pleasure.

Eww. Blowjobs.

Straight missionary style for me. And only for pregnancy, never for pleasure.




Not for pleasure? Hmmm, I can see the Catholic Church at work here, just kidding.

We have seen this, not learned this as fact, because it isn't fact. (regarding the tendancy of absolute rulers to be tyrants)

History would disagree with you. In nations which have had absolute rulers the vast majority of those rulers have been tyrants, even to this very day. You're basing your system of government around a plan which has wishful thinking as its centerpiece.


They can believe what they want. I dont control the terrorists. I will pull out of middle eastern affairs, and they would lose much support if they kept attacking. I would work on securing our borders moreso instead of getting involved there. They would lose by attrition.


They won't lose support if they continue attacking us because they use the political and religious institutions in their home nations to propagandize the people into believing that the problems those nations face are due to the US, aka the "Great Satan." You can't simply say that you will defeat the enemy by attrition either. Thus far the terrorists have been fighting us for over thirty years now. Shall we just sit back and absorb their blows until they get tired and go away? It looks like wishful thinking is again substituting for rational policy formation in your plan.


Not in particular, and not on purpose. If that happens, it happens, but I plan on it not.

This kind of glib dismissal of basic economic concerns shows the sheer intellectual bankruptcy of your scheme. You ignore history, you ignore economics, you assume that everything will go right, and if it doesn't then "oh well." I'm embarassed for you at this point.


I only gave a couple of things that I would reform. Many others would be as well. I would succeed, I believe, because I wouldn't have to worry so much about popularity and constraints, but only doing my best.

Your best clearly doesn't include learning from history or taking into account the basic premises of economics. I offer up criticisms of your policies and you just offer more vague hand waving about how you assume success because you have absolute power. Its so obvious that this is not how the world works that I'm hesitant to insult the average reader by explicating further on this matter.


This is your belief, not mine. Please don't present opinions as fact.

This isn't a belief, this is sound economic doctrine, something you would know if you had one iota of the competance you assume you possess.


It would be a US territory, with self-rule for the most part but strict US policies and it would be under my rule. It would be kept because of oil reserves, and as a possible new market-area.


Like two ships silently passing in the night you once again fail to address any of my points, instead going off onto something wholly unrelated. In addition to my original questions, are you going to simply take Iraqi oil, further weakening their economic position? What pray tell are you going to sell there that you couldn't sell with free trade policies between us and a sovereign Iraq?


I am for total warfare. I would do whatever nessecary to get places under control, even if it meant the obliteration of cities.

I also advocate the appropriate use of force, however, violence for the sake of violence is apparently what you are offering. Of course it is always going to come off like that when you never make any attempt to support your positions with reasoning.


The language would become english, and all schools would have to teach it. Emmigation to Iraq would bring economic oppertunities. First large companies would go to get cheap labour, then others would come as the economy, infrastructure, etc would become americanized.


Restating your original arguement with no addedems is not a debating tactic. Again I ask, why would anyone move to Iraq? How do you think it rational to simply assume that these things will happen?


People would be able to keep guns, im very much for guns rights....

You still didn't address my questions. I understood what you advocated, just not the why.


I'm not answering this because you have set up the whole question to make anything I say look bad.

The question was set up in that manner because it reflects the reality of the position you advocate. Inability to answer criticism doesn't bode well for this already lackluster set of policy suggestions.


I don't think its life until its born. However, I feel that if someone decides to have an abortion by the third term, its probably not because they never wanted the baby. Its probably a more sudden reason, and I would rather not have every person who had birthing jitters destroying their babies. We can put them to good use later in life.


Yet another unsupported claim. This time you presume to make sweeping generalizations regarding the mind set of third trimester mothers who seek abortions.


A local body will know whats best for their local area, and I will only need to deny them what they choose if I feel it would be worse.

So a local body knows whats best locally...unless you know better.


I like France. Alot.

So your personal preferences are sound basis for foreign policy now?


I feel stealth is more loss than it is gain. An F-22 has 6 places to hold weapons, if it wants to maintain stealth. A Rafale can hold 14. I never said anything about making them easy to detect, and low detectability aircraft like the Rafale are a very good example of this.

I get the feeling that you prefer this aircraft system simply because its of French manufacture. In any event your preference for the Rafale system over the F-22 is not grounded in fact as near as I can tell. The F-22 system was designed specifically to counter systems like the Rafale and the Eurofighter. For a basic rundown of the two systems see these websites.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-22.htm
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/rafale.htm


We wouldn't be fighting wars against small nations, because I would have little need.

So now you assume you can see the future too? I'm not sure if I should laugh or recommend you a psychologist.


They may be our best weapons, but they aren't at all the best weapons out there. Our equipment is subpar compared to many other nations equipment.


I don't know exactly which systems you are referring to here, but overall the US technical superiority is unchallenged in the world today. Like most of your statements you're short on details.

This was really quite sad, do try harder next time please.

Not for pleasure? Hmmm, I can see the Catholic Church at work here, just kidding.

Well I agree with you, and I'm *not* kidding.

Well I agree with you, and I'm *not* kidding.




If Chellis had said men shouldn't wear rubbers, then I wouldn't have been kidding either.

History would disagree with you. In nations which have had absolute rulers the vast majority of those rulers have been tyrants, even to this very day. You're basing your system of government around a plan which has wishful thinking as its centerpiece.

You can call any type of hope wishful thinking. Its not a bad thing. We have to have wishful thinking to hope that america decides not to commit mass suicide. Anything can happen. Just because something doesn't happen often, doesn't mean it wont. Just because something happens often, doesn't mean it will.

They won't lose support if they continue attacking us because they use the political and religious institutions in their home nations to propagandize the people into believing that the problems those nations face are due to the US, aka the "Great Satan." You can't simply say that you will defeat the enemy by attrition either. Thus far the terrorists have been fighting us for over thirty years now. Shall we just sit back and absorb their blows until they get tired and go away? It looks like wishful thinking is again substituting for rational policy formation in your plan.

They will lose support. A huge issue of theirs is the fact that america is interfering with them. If they kept interfering, they would lose mass support. Those left would try to do attacks, but with more secure borders under my rule it would be harder.

This kind of glib dismissal of basic economic concerns shows the sheer intellectual bankruptcy of your scheme. You ignore history, you ignore economics, you assume that everything will go right, and if it doesn't then "oh well." I'm embarassed for you at this point.

I hope your embarresed for both of us, because Im not embarresed at all. You are very pessimistic, and I am sorry you are that way.

Your best clearly doesn't include learning from history or taking into account the basic premises of economics. I offer up criticisms of your policies and you just offer more vague hand waving about how you assume success because you have absolute power. Its so obvious that this is not how the world works that I'm hesitant to insult the average reader by explicating further on this matter.

Again, presenting opinions as fact.

This isn't a belief, this is sound economic doctrine, something you would know if you had one iota of the competance you assume you possess.

Wow, insulting me. That obviously shows you're right.

Like two ships silently passing in the night you once again fail to address any of my points, instead going off onto something wholly unrelated. In addition to my original questions, are you going to simply take Iraqi oil, further weakening their economic position? What pray tell are you going to sell there that you couldn't sell with free trade policies between us and a sovereign Iraq?



I also advocate the appropriate use of force, however, violence for the sake of violence is apparently what you are offering. Of course it is always going to come off like that when you never make any attempt to support your positions with reasoning.



Restating your original arguement with no addedems is not a debating tactic. Again I ask, why would anyone move to Iraq? How do you think it rational to simply assume that these things will happen?



You still didn't address my questions. I understood what you advocated, just not the why.



The question was set up in that manner because it reflects the reality of the position you advocate. Inability to answer criticism doesn't bode well for this already lackluster set of policy suggestions.



Yet another unsupported claim. This time you presume to make sweeping generalizations regarding the mind set of third trimester mothers who seek abortions.



So a local body knows whats best locally...unless you know better.



So your personal preferences are sound basis for foreign policy now?



I get the feeling that you prefer this aircraft system simply because its of French manufacture. In any event your preference for the Rafale system over the F-22 is not grounded in fact as near as I can tell. The F-22 system was designed specifically to counter systems like the Rafale and the Eurofighter. For a basic rundown of the two systems see these websites.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-22.htm
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/rafale.htm



So now you assume you can see the future too? I'm not sure if I should laugh or recommend you a psychologist.



I don't know exactly which systems you are referring to here, but overall the US technical superiority is unchallenged in the world today. Like most of your statements you're short on details.

This was really quite sad, do try harder next time please.

Im not responding further, because you aren't even debating. You are just insulting and acting as you know everything. If you were actually arguing off facts, or anything, I might give a good argument back.

You are so held in your own beliefs, its not an argument. Its insulting every policy mindlessly. Im not wasting my time on you.

If I became president, I would make sure those 2 would never seize power.

If I became president, I would make sure those 2 would never seize power.



Which two, Chellis and Vox Humana?

He is not interested in proof. If he was, he would be aware of the fact that atheism stands on far more tentative ground than, say, Christianity, since atheism actually relies on Evolution for its support. However, since evolution is chock-full of its own problems it really doesn't constitute a very firm base of support.
Atheism does not rely on evolution for support. :)

You can call any type of hope wishful thinking. Its not a bad thing.


Wishful thinking is not an acceptable way to formulate policy agendas.



They will lose support. A huge issue of theirs is the fact that america is interfering with them. If they kept interfering, they would lose mass support. Those left would try to do attacks, but with more secure borders under my rule it would be harder.


The only problem is that you assume these people and their propaganda are tied in any way whatsoever with reality. In fact they are not. So long as the current crop of Middle Easter leaders continue to misrepresent American actions and fabricate reasons why we are injuring their populations the current trends of terrorism will continue. Your policy is akin to something between a turtle going into its shell and an ostrich sticking its head in the sand. While I have no quarrel with strengthening border defense, it must also be recognized that only a proactive stance in the Middle East has any hope of curbing terrorist tendacies in the moderate future. We need to impress, with proper military action tailored to each specific operation, that terrorism is unacceptable and must end immediately.


I hope your embarresed for both of us, because Im not embarresed at all. You are very pessimistic, and I am sorry you are that way.

The word you're looking for is realistic. It isn't realistic to simply state that something will work without explaining the mechanics of why it will work. It is even more unacceptable to claim something will work in the face of historical examples and modern doctrine which shows how it won't work.

Wow, insulting me. That obviously shows you're right.

I often get irritated when people repost the same mindless droning arguements which have been questioned in a way which addresses none of the criticisms.



Im not responding further, because you aren't even debating. You are just insulting and acting as you know everything. If you were actually arguing off facts, or anything, I might give a good argument back.

You are so held in your own beliefs, its not an argument. Its insulting every policy mindlessly. Im not wasting my time on you.


You have thus far not answered a single criticism nor posted a single shred of facts or reasoning to back up your positions. Despite your protests I have posted detailed reasoning as to why I believe you are wrong, and facts when appropriate. I expect the same respect in return, instead I get a unsupported presumptiveness of authority from you, and indignation when I ruffle your feathers over it. I do agree with you on one point though, I'm not debating. It takes two to debate and thus far I'm the only one actually saying anything...

Wishful thinking is not an acceptable way to formulate policy agendas.




The only problem is that you assume these people and their propaganda are tied in any way whatsoever with reality. In fact they are not. So long as the current crop of Middle Easter leaders continue to misrepresent American actions and fabricate reasons why we are injuring their populations the current trends of terrorism will continue. Your policy is akin to a turtle going into its shell. While I have no quarrel with strengthening border defense, it must also be recognized that only a proactive stance in the Middle East has any hope of curbing terrorist tendacies in the moderate future. We need to impress, with proper military action tailored to each specific operation, that terrorism is unacceptable and must end immediately.



The word you're looking for is realistic. It isn't realistic to simply state that something will work without explaining the mechanics of why it will work. It is even more unacceptable to claim something will work in the face of historical examples and modern doctrine which shows how it won't work.



I often get irritated when people repost the same mindless droning arguements which have been questioned in a way which addresses none of the criticisms.






You have thus far not answered a single critism nor posted a single shred of facts or reasoning to back up your positions. Despite your protests I have posted detailed reasoning as to why I believe you are wrong, and facts when appropriate. I expect the same respect in return, instead I get a unsupported presumptiveness of authority from you, and indignation when I ruffle your feathers over it. I do agree with you on one point though, I'm not debating. It takes two to debate and thus far I'm the only one actually saying anything...

You're funny, but thats about it. I suggest watching comedy central over CNN.